If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It has never been my impression that anyone is about the business of denying "Global Warming". Anyone can see the pictures and say, "Yup, there it is". Perhaps some use a phrase that sounds that simple, but I really don't believe such language.

The dispute is two-fold.
1) Is it REALLY "climate change" or is it a normal cycle and we just don't have millenia of information to judge?
2) Are humans doing anything that makes it worse and can we do anything to make it any, as some would deem, "better"? The Paris accord is a tricky thing. Most of the improvement talked about is in the future. We have no current idea how to make any difference RIGHT NOW and we have little idea RIGHT NOW how to make it better in the future.

Does the ambiguity mean we should do nothing? Absolutely not. We see much correlation with human activity. Do we see causation? Unclear. It's not an experiment we can repeat.

My favorite ambiguity is electric cars.
1) In Norway, most of the power generation is hydro. Electric cars have a valid claim on changing the global outcome for cars.
2) In the U.S.ofA., nearly 2/3 of power generation is still from fossil fuels. Thus, electric cars are substantially just fossil fuel cars. The effect on Climate Change is entirely unclear.

In addition, one cannot simply shut off entire employment segments. We saw this with tobacco in former times. We came to the conclusion that in order to eliminate tobacco production, we would have to rewrite the entire economies of North Carolina and Kentucky! We would have to think carefully about that sort of change. Previous U.S.ofA. administrations have tackled the Coal Industry rather vigorously. West Virginia has not been pleased.

Anyway, there is nothing about this issue that is simple, except the pretty pictures with data from just the last century or so.

My views. I welcome others'.

"Unique Answers Don't Care How You Find Them." - Many may have said it, but I hear it most from me.

However, as with other matters of fact, his proclamations fluctuate over time. On the issue of global warming, it seems like Trump still needs a teacher

No, President Trump doesn't still need a teacher. Scientists' data cannot be trusted,
just as one aspect of it.
Your own reaction shows you are an alarmist and are working off of emotionalism.
I welcome the deniers and skeptics who work against major charlatans such as Al Gore who
continues to get rich off of their failed doomsday climate predictions over the decades.

I would encourage you to google keywords examples of climate change denial. Start with the Wikipedia article.

I require no such encouragement. Your examples are what I was talking out when I said I simply didn't believe the statements being made. I don't consider political-agenda-motivated speeches as sources of truth or honesty. I am relatively sure that if I sat down and had an off-the-record chat with any of the individuals in your examples, that there would be no such foolishness.

If you include the Pleistocene Epoch in our charts, it should be easy to show Global Warming.

As far as your very nice moving info-graphic, before there is an amazing result taken from it, you'll have to explain the absence of new records from 1944 to 1980. Global warming just took a break for 36 years, in the thick of industrialization, while humans weren't even thinking about greenhouse gases? Doesn't quite make sense favorable to the argument's intended conclusion.

"Unique Answers Don't Care How You Find Them." - Many may have said it, but I hear it most from me.

Your examples are what I was talking out when I said I simply didn't believe the statements being made.

Oh, I see. I had misunderstood you. I had thought you meant that the individuals themselves did not actually believe their own words. Please excuse me.

I don't consider political-agenda-motivated speeches as sources of truth or honesty. I am relatively sure that if I sat down and had an off-the-record chat with any of the individuals in your examples, that there would be no such foolishness.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall, during those chats!

I've seen two casual sit-downs with Senator Inhofe, and, he always presents himself as a very pleasant gentlemen -- always civil -- listening carefully and not interrupting the interviewer, but he was insistent and unwavering in his personal belief system that there is no upward trend in mean global temperatures. He has said (both) that he thinks science has simply got this one wrong and that claims of warming are "the greatest hoax" by liberals who want to take away states' rights while creating the largest new set of taxes on business ever. More recently, however, he has said, "I'm not a scientist, so I can't say." Maybe his perspective has evolved, but I think you're a bit over-optimistic regarding no foolishness from any of them.

As for data lapses in that particular display, I can't say for sure, but I could try to find an answer at nasa.gov. I suspect that global records of the type used by NASA for that graphic were not available/verifiable (or something like that) for certain date ranges. When I pulled that image, I did not read through all of the NASA information on that page regarding their scientists' methodology. I got the general impression that the graphic reflects aggregate data from a number of different sources -- not just NASA itself.

"English is the most ambiguous language in the world." ~ Yours Truly, 1969

I had thought you meant that the individuals themselves did not actually believe their own words

No mistake there. That is my intent. As long as we talk liberals, conservatives, left, right, or whatever other political variation, there is no doubt in my mind that there are opinions and views that are party-based and have little to do with actual, personal ideology. I am personally offended at the voting booth when I see the Party Button - just click this one button and you can vote for ALL the democrats or ALL the republicans. I simply don't believe that any individual truly and factually and honestly believes it is how they should vote. Do they even know some of the people for whom they just voted? It is party-speak and I blame the party, not the individual.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall, during those chats!

I'm guessing that you listening in might violate the "off-the-record" premise.

I've seen two casual sit-downs with ...

I too have seen many interviews. We are very, VERY good at coaching to control the message. I need to sit down with them myself, without cameras, without aides, before I believe it. It should be interesting to note that I almost always vote for a candidate who will talk to me. The public words rarely sway me so much as the personal conversation.

...overly optimistic...

Perhaps.

"Unique Answers Don't Care How You Find Them." - Many may have said it, but I hear it most from me.